Guest guest Posted March 17, 2004 Report Share Posted March 17, 2004 , "childofdevi" <childofdevi> wrote: > These restrictions have been removed by Mata Amritanandamayi for her > shishyas(that includes myself); She is "no-one" to do that. Fortunately or unfortunately She doesnt have the authority to do so. Those two statements above dont mean that She isnt a mahatma. She is. But doesnt have the authority to do what She did. > > Above is a prayoga. It requires one to be initiated into > > Panchadashakshari and be a Puraschanarana Siddha to be able to do > > above and for it to work. Such prayogas should not be done without > > This is your "common-sense" interpretation I suppose? How come you > chose not to interpret this "poetically" LOL. That a prayoga can be done only after purascharana is well acknowledged in standard manuals on mantra shastra. That isnt my interpretation. It is a vidhi(see below for more on this) statement. Have a question for you:So do you say or agree that a tantrika prayoga can be done without purascharana? Yes or no? If yes, plz state on what basis it is yes. If no, what is the point of your response? As for poetic interpretation, I explained in detail in an earlier message about it. There are different types of spiritual works and the word of the scripture is of different types and meant to be understood accordingly. Ex: Take Veda: The word of the veda is divided into five classes. There are five types of vedic statements. Most or all of the vedic statements fall into one of these five categories. They are 1)Vidhi 2)mantra 3)namadheya 4)nisheda 5)arthavaada Of these, that statement of veda which is vidhi(injunction) is to be taken literally. A nisheda(something not to be done) statement is also taken literally.Mantra is well known. I dont know what exactly namadheya means in this context although its literal translation is name. The fifth one is arthavaada which means exaggeration- which is not meant to be taken literally. As an aside, it may interest you that these five types of vedic statements are thought of as representations of five faces of Parameshvara/SadaShiva.(in Swami Svayam Prakashananda Giri's hindi translation of shivanAmakalpalatAlavAlaH-Sri Bhaskararaya's commentary on Shiva Ashtottara-published by Dakshinamurti Mutt- Varanasi) Likewise there are different scriptures. (Below two are only two of different classes) Like say 1)Stuti Literature- praise- Ex: Muka Panchasati(500 verses in praise of Kamakshi)-which is poetical in nature and is ought to be read and understood in a poetic sense. But there are some exceptional stutis(Like SL) which express great tantric truths and one needs to pay attention to those too. (See my other post regarding SL on this) 2)Sutra Literature- Like Parashurama Kalpa Sutra, Nityotsava etc.- Whose words are specifically meant to be understood literally and are meant to be executed to the point. Their content is mainly comprises Vidhi and nisheda statements. Ex: If Parashurama kalpa sutra says dont eat sugarcane, it is to be followed literally. There might be a philosophical meaning to above. But whether such philosophical meaning exists or not the statement has to be literally followed. The philosphical meaning also needs to be understood correctly for spiritual progress though. If one understands that there exist such different classes of scriptures which are meant to be understood in different ways, there will be no confusion(as to what needs to be taken literally and what shouldnt) as you display above. Rgds Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 17, 2004 Report Share Posted March 17, 2004 "She is "no-one" to do that. Fortunately or unfortunately She doesnt have the authority to do so. Those two statements above dont mean that She isnt a mahatma. She is. But doesnt have the authority to do what She did." SOOOOOOO who is the authority? I am curious Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 17, 2004 Report Share Posted March 17, 2004 , "N. Madasamy" <ashwini_puralasamy> wrote: > "She is "no-one" to do that. Fortunately or unfortunately She doesnt > have the authority to do so. Those two statements above dont mean > that She isnt a mahatma. She is. But doesnt have the authority to do > what She did." > > SOOOOOOO who is the authority? I am curious One's Guru. And those scriptures followed in their Guru's sampradaya. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 17, 2004 Report Share Posted March 17, 2004 > > Ex: Take Veda: The word of the veda is divided into five classes. > There are five types of vedic statements. Most or all of the vedic > statements fall into one of these five categories. > They are 1)Vidhi 2)mantra 3)namadheya 4)nisheda 5)arthavaada > > Of these, that statement of veda which is vidhi(injunction) is to be > taken literally. A nisheda(something not to be done) statement is > also taken literally.Mantra is well known. I dont know what exactly > namadheya means in this context although its literal translation is > name. The fifth one is arthavaada which means exaggeration- which is > not meant to be taken literally. > > As an aside, it may interest you that these five types of vedic > statements are thought of as representations of five faces of > Parameshvara/SadaShiva.(in Swami Svayam Prakashananda Giri's hindi > translation of shivanAmakalpalatAlavAlaH-Sri Bhaskararaya's > commentary on Shiva Ashtottara-published by Dakshinamurti Mutt- > Varanasi) > For your kind info, Lord Shiva has a sixth-face(vide Skandapurana); this sixth face is not visible to idiots, fools, fellows without faith .... people of that type. The sixth-face is the most auspicious of all of the faces and is symbolic of the Satguru's words- what this means is that the Guru's words are the ultimate scripture and takes precedence over all written scripture(which have been mis- interpreted, mis-applied and mis-represented by utterly incompetent people and imbeciles over the centuries, putting Mother India in its pitiable state today). Surely you are also a very knowledgeable person in shastra from all the posts that I have seen of you and surely you are aware that all scripture extolls the Guru's words as the supreme truth. Perhaps you do not consider Mata Amritanandamayi as an avatar/guru, and understandably so, you are free to disregard her words as you like. But anyone with an iota of "common-sense"(which you use in copious amounts when it works to your advantage LOL) will see that chanting LS has only brought benefits; to think that it harms anyone is utter rubbish. -yogaman ps. BTW please dont consider this as a personal attack; as a person I have great respect for you; only disagreeing with what I believe is an erroneous notion of yours. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 17, 2004 Report Share Posted March 17, 2004 I am trying to understand this : Childofdevi : These restrictions have been removed by Mata Amritanandamayi for her shishyas (that includes myself); Satish : She is "no-one" to do that. Fortunately or unfortunately She doesnt have the authority to do so.Those two statements above dont mean that She isnt a mahatma. She is. But doesnt have the authority to do what She did. Nora : SOOOOOOO who is the authority? I am curious Satish : One's Guru. And those scriptures followed in their Guru's sampradaya Are we missing something here? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 17, 2004 Report Share Posted March 17, 2004 , "Satish Arigela" <satisharigela> wrote: > , "N. Madasamy" > <ashwini_puralasamy> wrote: > > "She is "no-one" to do that. Fortunately or unfortunately She > doesnt > > have the authority to do so. Those two statements above dont mean > > that She isnt a mahatma. She is. But doesnt have the authority to > do > > what She did." > > > > SOOOOOOO who is the authority? I am curious > > > One's Guru. And those scriptures followed in their Guru's > sampradaya. This is a direct contradiction of what you were telling earlier (that the Satguru has no authority to do ). It seems to me that what you are really telling is that YOU are the authority(since you have already decided who has the authority to change things) on the basis of "common-sense", "poetic" or shastra as it is convenient. Perhaps your Guru gave you these instructions, so then follow them religiously but dont foist them on others; one mans food is another's poision. Dont we have enough trouble with zealots today trying to prove they alone are right and others must to their ideology? Perhaps you are concerned with dilution of age-old teachings; but think over that again, great sages have been taking birth in Sanatana Dharma from time immemorial to take care of that. Do you think Sanatana Dharma will dissolve without your intervention? -yogaman Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 17, 2004 Report Share Posted March 17, 2004 , "childofdevi" <childofdevi> wrote: > For your kind info, Lord Shiva has a sixth-face(vide >Skandapurana); > this sixth face is not visible to idiots, fools, fellows without > faith .... people of that type. The sixth-face is the most auspicious > of all of the faces and is symbolic of the Satguru's words- Thanks for mentioning the sixth face. Actually that is the reason I wrote Parameshvara/SadaShiva. First I typed Parameshvara/ParamaShiva and erased it. It is also mentioned in another work called ParaShambhu Mahimna stuti, which is supposedly written by Durvasa Bhagavan. Parashambhu is ParamaShiva. This sixth face is said to represent the Anuttara amnaya of Srividya. According to one version thru this sixth face, ParamaShiva revealed puja paddhatis, rules, restrictions etc. The rest five revealed different mantras like Shaiva, Shakta, vaishnava etc. My memory on this isnt clear. Cant remember where I came across the info that sixth face reveals such and such. Can you plz provide a ref as to where is it mentioned that the sixth face is symbolic of Guru's words? Skanda Purana? That is an ocean. >what this > means is that the Guru's words are the ultimate scripture and >takes > precedence over all written scripture(which have been mis- > interpreted, mis-applied and mis-represented by utterly incompetent > people and imbeciles over the centuries, putting Mother India in >its > pitiable state today). There might be a few which/who are corrupt and it isnt difficult to figure them IMHO. I am aware of some interpolations/additions and personally, I disregard them. > Perhaps you do not consider Mata Amritanandamayi as an avatar/guru, > and understandably so, you are free to disregard her words as you > like. But anyone with an iota of "common-sense"(which you use in > copious amounts when it works to your advantage LOL) I mentioned and clarified what is commonsense in other thread. >will see that > chanting LS has only brought benefits; to think that it harms anyone > is utter rubbish. Once again: On this particular thread, I am specifically talking about a prayoga using Lalita Sahasranama and not about chanting Lalita Sahasranama in itself. I think I clarified that in a previous post also. We discussed about LS chanting in other lists and I dont want to bring that up again. > > -yogaman > > ps. BTW please dont consider this as a personal attack; No. I dont. Plz dont worry about that. Thx for other comments. Rgds Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 17, 2004 Report Share Posted March 17, 2004 > > Thanks for mentioning the sixth face. Actually that is the reason I > wrote Parameshvara/SadaShiva. First I typed Parameshvara/ParamaShiva > and erased it. It is also mentioned in another work called > ParaShambhu Mahimna stuti, which is supposedly written by Durvasa > Bhagavan. Parashambhu is ParamaShiva. This sixth face is said to > represent the Anuttara amnaya of Srividya. According to one version > thru this sixth face, ParamaShiva revealed puja paddhatis, rules, > restrictions etc. The rest five revealed different mantras like > Shaiva, Shakta, vaishnava etc. My memory on this isnt clear. Cant > remember where I came across the info that sixth face reveals such > and such. > > Can you plz provide a ref as to where is it mentioned that the sixth > face is symbolic of Guru's words? Skanda Purana? That is an ocean. > I think you have answered that question with the previous paragraph. I made this interpolation based on a little bit of "common-sense" LOL. Joke aside, I(not sure though) believe I came across this in a shortened version of the oceanic Skandapurana(in Malayalam by Sri M. Nair I believe) > Once again: On this particular thread, I am specifically talking > about a prayoga using Lalita Sahasranama and not about chanting > Lalita Sahasranama in itself. I think I clarified that in a previous > post also. We discussed about LS chanting in other lists and I dont > want to bring that up again. > So you are OK with chanting LS? But why would anyone chant LS if it did not give any benefits(including abstract benefits such as greater bhakti etc). So everyone chants LS for some benefit- meaning that is is a "unconscious" prayoga- so there you go! So everyone is doing a prayoga with LS either consciously or unconsciosly. A prayoga is proscribed only when it is for harming someone(which will backfire). Anyone with material problems MUST chant the LS; if he lacks bhakti, the very act of chanting it will bring him closer to the Mother. -yogaman Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 17, 2004 Report Share Posted March 17, 2004 , "childofdevi" <childofdevi> wrote: > > One's Guru. And those scriptures followed in their Guru's > > sampradaya. > > This is a direct contradiction of what you were telling earlier (that > the Satguru has no authority to do ). That satguru has no authority to do, is your interpretation of my words. What do the tantras say about Guru? What to they say about the question of who can be a Guru? What are the qualities of a satguru? Find out for urself and see if there is contradiction in the above. I am not posting what they say about who can be a guru and who cannot be, coz I can already see an emotional pitch in the rest of this posting. >It seems to me that what you > are really telling is that YOU are the authority(since you have > already decided who has the authority to change things) on the >basis > of "common-sense", "poetic" or shastra as it is convenient. You are free to infer anything about me. Nobody can stop that. Read some of my previous posting on the other thread. I did notice that you have been using the word common sense and poetic more often off-late when referring to my posts. I already explained what they mean and in what context, I was using those words. I even gave practical examples. Instead of questioning the examples or showing to me and the list with reasons like due to such and such reasons that example doesnt make sense, you tend to ignore them. What is the point of using those words to refer me even after me explaining them? Is that a subtle way of being derisive? On ur last word convenient: Covenience?How does conveneince come into picture? > Perhaps you are concerned with dilution of age-old teachings; but > think over that again, great sages have been taking birth in Sanatana > Dharma from time immemorial to take care of that. Yeah ofcourse. Someone will always be there to take care of that. So that prevents one from saying this is what a particluar scripture says on so and so issue? >Do you think > Sanatana Dharma will dissolve without your intervention? Rgds Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 17, 2004 Report Share Posted March 17, 2004 , "childofdevi" <childofdevi> wrote: > > Once again: On this particular thread, I am specifically talking > > about a prayoga using Lalita Sahasranama and not about chanting > > Lalita Sahasranama in itself. I think I clarified that in a > previous > > post also. We discussed about LS chanting in other lists and I dont > > want to bring that up again. > > > > So you are OK with chanting LS? See above. >But why would anyone chant LS if it > did not give any benefits(including abstract benefits such as greater > bhakti etc). So everyone chants LS for some benefit- meaning that is > is a "unconscious" prayoga- so there you go! So everyone is doing a > prayoga with LS either consciously or unconsciosly. Prayoga is different from intent. What you are referring to is intent I guess. A prayoga involves some act other than intent and chanting. Bhaskararaya refers to this particular one act as a prayoga,in his commentary. In our particular example, butter is held in hand and then LS chanted to make the womb of a barren woman fruitful. This butter is given to the women to consume. Hence it is a prayoga. Paushtika prayoga. Bhaskararaya refers to this particular act as a prayoga,in his commentary. > > A prayoga is proscribed only when it is for harming someone(which > will backfire). Anyone with material problems MUST chant the LS; Why do you think there are two terms to refer them? Paushtika Prayoga, Shanti Prayoga and Ofcourse the famous Shatkarma? Also see above. There is something called Ayushkara Prayoga.It is for the good of onself and not to harm others but it is still called prayoga. So your statement that prayoga is only for harming someone is baseless. Rgds Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 17, 2004 Report Share Posted March 17, 2004 Namaste, Satishji, Some of Amma's shishyas (myself included) consider Her to be not only a mahatma, but a divine incarnation of Devi. On that authority, I believe She is fully qualified to recommend any practice. I absolutely trust Her discrimination in these matters. You, however, do not have to. Amma has not, (to my knowlege) instructed us to do the prayogas, it is only LS that She specifically advises. In regards to the statement of benefits, it is made clear, as I quoted before, that the Brahmanda Purana says that chanting the LS gives the benefits of the other two observances, but that conversely, LS is indispensable to those who worship Sri Chakra and chant the pancadasaksari. In other words, either do all three, or only LS. Either way, the benefits are there. Again, I would never suggest that anyone blindly agree that Amma is an incarnation. It is my own faith that leads me to these conclusions, and my faith in Her greatness has grown from years of experiencing Her greatness and perfect love work in my own life, and by witnessing the shared experiences of fellow devotees. I strongly believe that forcing this faith on others is wrong, though, and want to be clear that I am not here to promote Amma. I'm just sharing my personal experience. You are welcome to your beliefs, and I thank you for sharing them. I think it's good for these kinds of things to be questioned and discussed. It seems to me that in this and the other thread, a lot of semantical arguing is going on regarding interpretation of various scriptural points, poetic and otherwise. My two cents: there is not a meaningless word in the scriptures of the eternal religion. It is dangerous territory to decide for ourselves what is poetic and what is literal. We risk losing the real intent of those sacred words. If something is unclear, we should let it wash over us and know that surely we will grasp it's meaning later when we are established in oneness with Her. Of course, it is invaluable to discuss and muse the scriptures with fellow seekers, but let's try to be a bit less judgemental. After all, can we really say that we know the meaning of a scripture until we are a living example of the truths contained in it? It is one thing to say, "I am not the ego, I am the atman," but who among us is living as one who really knows that? Let's be a bit more humble in our approach to discussing the meanings of these sacred texts. love, Brianna P.S. Humble apologies to anyone on this list who is already a realized master;) ! In that case, your scriptural musings are most appreciated.... , "Satish Arigela" <satisharigela> wrote: > , "childofdevi" > <childofdevi> wrote: > > These restrictions have been removed by Mata Amritanandamayi for > her > > shishyas(that includes myself); > > > She is "no-one" to do that. Fortunately or unfortunately She > doesnt have the authority to do so. > > Those two statements above dont mean that She isnt a mahatma. She is. > But doesnt have the authority to do what She did. > > > > > Above is a prayoga. It requires one to be initiated into > > > Panchadashakshari and be a Puraschanarana Siddha to be able to > do > > > above and for it to work. Such prayogas should not be done > without > > > > This is your "common-sense" interpretation I suppose? How come you > > chose not to interpret this "poetically" LOL. > > > That a prayoga can be done only after purascharana is well > acknowledged in standard manuals on mantra shastra. That isnt my > interpretation. It is a vidhi(see below for more on this) statement. > > Have a question for you:So do you say or agree that a tantrika > prayoga can be done without purascharana? Yes or no? > If yes, plz state on what basis it is yes. > If no, what is the point of your response? > > As for poetic interpretation, I explained in detail in an earlier > message about it. > > There are different types of spiritual works and the word of the > scripture is of different types and meant to be understood > accordingly. > > Ex: Take Veda: The word of the veda is divided into five classes. > There are five types of vedic statements. Most or all of the vedic > statements fall into one of these five categories. > They are 1)Vidhi 2)mantra 3)namadheya 4)nisheda 5)arthavaada > > Of these, that statement of veda which is vidhi(injunction) is to be > taken literally. A nisheda(something not to be done) statement is > also taken literally.Mantra is well known. I dont know what exactly > namadheya means in this context although its literal translation is > name. The fifth one is arthavaada which means exaggeration- which is > not meant to be taken literally. > > As an aside, it may interest you that these five types of vedic > statements are thought of as representations of five faces of > Parameshvara/SadaShiva.(in Swami Svayam Prakashananda Giri's hindi > translation of shivanAmakalpalatAlavAlaH-Sri Bhaskararaya's > commentary on Shiva Ashtottara-published by Dakshinamurti Mutt- > Varanasi) > > Likewise there are different scriptures. (Below two are only two of > different classes) > Like say > 1)Stuti Literature- praise- Ex: Muka Panchasati(500 verses in praise > of Kamakshi)-which is poetical in nature and is ought to be read and > understood in a poetic sense. > But there are some exceptional stutis(Like SL) which express great > tantric truths and one needs to pay attention to those too. > (See my other post regarding SL on this) > 2)Sutra Literature- Like Parashurama Kalpa Sutra, Nityotsava etc.- > Whose words are specifically meant to be understood literally and > are meant to be executed to the point. Their content is mainly > comprises Vidhi and nisheda statements. > Ex: If Parashurama kalpa sutra says dont eat sugarcane, it is to be > followed literally. There might be a philosophical meaning to above. > But whether such philosophical meaning exists or not the statement > has to be literally followed. The philosphical meaning also needs to > be understood correctly for spiritual progress though. > > If one understands that there exist such different classes of > scriptures which are meant to be understood in different ways, there > will be no confusion(as to what needs to be taken literally and what > shouldnt) as you display above. > > Rgds Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 18, 2004 Report Share Posted March 18, 2004 Perhaps Satish is posing one of those Zen riddles that contradict themselves? What is the sound of one hand clapping? Your Guru doesn't have the authority to do that. The only one who can do that is your Guru. -- Len/ Kalipadma On Thu, 18 Mar 2004 01:10:35 -0000 "N. Madasamy" <ashwini_puralasamy writes: > I am trying to understand this : > > Childofdevi : These restrictions have been removed by Mata > Amritanandamayi for her shishyas (that includes myself); > > Satish : She is "no-one" to do that. Fortunately or unfortunately > She > doesnt have the authority to do so.Those two statements above dont > mean that She isnt a mahatma. She is. But doesnt have the authority > to do what She did. > > Nora : SOOOOOOO who is the authority? I am curious > > Satish : One's Guru. And those scriptures followed in their Guru's > sampradaya > > > Are we missing something here? > > > > > ------------------------ Sponsor > > > Links > > > > > > ______________ The best thing to hit the Internet in years - Juno SpeedBand! Surf the Web up to FIVE TIMES FASTER! Only $14.95/ month - visit www.juno.com to sign up today! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 18, 2004 Report Share Posted March 18, 2004 I am NOT a follower of Amritanandamayi Amma though I have met her many times. But let me tell you in all sincerity that she HAS the authority to change anything and I believe one of her missions is to popularise LS and through that slowly change the spiritual charecter of people who do that. Her meditations are great and i am sure that many - at least a few thousands if not millions - have been uplifted. She is indeed a mahatma of this time. Kochu "N. Madasamy" <ashwini_puralasamy wrote: I am trying to understand this : Childofdevi : These restrictions have been removed by Mata Amritanandamayi for her shishyas (that includes myself); Satish : She is "no-one" to do that. Fortunately or unfortunately She doesnt have the authority to do so.Those two statements above dont mean that She isnt a mahatma. She is. But doesnt have the authority to do what She did. Nora : SOOOOOOO who is the authority? I am curious Satish : One's Guru. And those scriptures followed in their Guru's sampradaya Are we missing something here? / Mail - More reliable, more storage, less spam Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 18, 2004 Report Share Posted March 18, 2004 i am a fool and got totally confused at all this. kalipadma wrote: Perhaps Satish is posing one of those Zen riddles that contradict themselves? What is the sound of one hand clapping? Your Guru doesn't have the authority to do that. The only one who can do that is your Guru. -- Len/ Kalipadma On Thu, 18 Mar 2004 01:10:35 -0000 "N. Madasamy" <ashwini_puralasamy writes: > I am trying to understand this : > > Childofdevi : These restrictions have been removed by Mata > Amritanandamayi for her shishyas (that includes myself); > > Satish : She is "no-one" to do that. Fortunately or unfortunately > She > doesnt have the authority to do so.Those two statements above dont > mean that She isnt a mahatma. She is. But doesnt have the authority > to do what She did. > > Nora : SOOOOOOO who is the authority? I am curious > > Satish : One's Guru. And those scriptures followed in their Guru's > sampradaya > > > Are we missing something here? > > > > > ------------------------ Sponsor > > > Links > > > > > > ______________ The best thing to hit the Internet in years - Juno SpeedBand! Surf the Web up to FIVE TIMES FASTER! Only $14.95/ month - visit www.juno.com to sign up today! / Mail - More reliable, more storage, less spam Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 18, 2004 Report Share Posted March 18, 2004 , kalipadma@j... wrote: > > Your Guru doesn't > have the authority to do that. The only one who can do that is >your > Guru. Sorry! My mistake. I went thru what is written below again. When Nora asked who has authority, I was under the impression of authority in general sense and failed to notice she is specifically asking "who has authority to change". Answer is none. That I was under the wrong impression can be verfied by the sentence which followed "one's guru"(see below- last but one sentence)). Should have been clear. I believe I made a posting in relation to this addressing Yogaman. Now I understand why that particular post of his was caustic. Apologies Yogaman. Lost track while making so many responses in a single day. Rgds > > -- Len/ Kalipadma > > > On Thu, 18 Mar 2004 01:10:35 -0000 "N. Madasamy" > <ashwini_puralasamy> writes: > > I am trying to understand this : > > > > Childofdevi : These restrictions have been removed by Mata > > Amritanandamayi for her shishyas (that includes myself); > > > > Satish : She is "no-one" to do that. Fortunately or unfortunately > > She > > doesnt have the authority to do so.Those two statements above dont > > mean that She isnt a mahatma. She is. But doesnt have the authority > > to do what She did. > > > > Nora : SOOOOOOO who is the authority? I am curious > > > > Satish : One's Guru. And those scriptures followed in their Guru's > > sampradaya > > > > > > Are we missing something here? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 19, 2004 Report Share Posted March 19, 2004 OM Kalipadma You said, "Perhaps Satish is posing one of those Zen riddles that contradict themselves? What is the sound of one hand clapping?" The way through a riddle is to ignore apparent contradictions, assume it is a legitimate question and focus on the solution. The sound of one hand clapping reminds me of the unstruck sound, this Zen koan could be referring to Anahata sounds. OM Namah Sivaya Omprem , kalipadma@j... wrote: > > Perhaps Satish is posing one of those Zen riddles that contradict > themselves? What is the sound of one hand clapping? Your Guru doesn't > have the authority to do that. The only one who can do that is your > Guru. > > -- Len/ Kalipadma > > > On Thu, 18 Mar 2004 01:10:35 -0000 "N. Madasamy" > <ashwini_puralasamy> writes: > > I am trying to understand this : > > > > Childofdevi : These restrictions have been removed by Mata > > Amritanandamayi for her shishyas (that includes myself); > > > > Satish : She is "no-one" to do that. Fortunately or unfortunately > > She > > doesnt have the authority to do so.Those two statements above dont > > mean that She isnt a mahatma. She is. But doesnt have the authority > > to do what She did. > > > > Nora : SOOOOOOO who is the authority? I am curious > > > > Satish : One's Guru. And those scriptures followed in their Guru's > > sampradaya > > > > > > Are we missing something here? > > > > > > > > > > ------------------------ Sponsor > > > > > > Links > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ______________ > The best thing to hit the Internet in years - Juno SpeedBand! > Surf the Web up to FIVE TIMES FASTER! > Only $14.95/ month - visit www.juno.com to sign up today! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.